Invoking ASME Y14.100 1

[Tunalover]

If I had a part with screw threads, surface finishes, welds, and geometric tolerances does is suffice to call out in a note only ASME Y14.100-2004 seeing how that standard calls out all the other standard for screw threads, surface finishes, welds, and tolerances? e.g. is it necessary to call out (in a note) ASME Y14.5-2009 if that standard is called out in ASME Y14.100-2004? Also, if I leave off the revision ala "ASME Y14.100" what revision does the drawing default to? Does it default to the latest revision (now 2004), the revision in effect at the time the drawing was released, or the revision in effect at the date of issue of the PO? Always wondered this so your help is appreciated.



Tunalover

 

[3DDave]

I think the Y14.5 requires that the issue is identified on the drawing, but I don't know if Y14.100 does.

It is probably better to be explicit rather than make the recipient research what the effective contract date and the status of all related documents. While this would not be the case for many specifications, because many specifications are handled by addition of new cases without changing existing requirement or by making tolerances narrower, in the case of Y14.5 in particular there are rules changes that are contradictory from issue to issue that are only made obvious by other depictions, such as either RFS or MMC being default.

What can be especially irritating are cases that were not handled in the older versions and become explained in later versions. So, even though it was not clear to the users of the documents initially, it appears to have an interpretation.

Taking programming as an example, suppose there was a programmer who wrote FOUR = 2 + "Two" at a time when there was no conversion specified for turning "Two" into a number or "2" into text. Later, a new version language gets an interpretation that "Two" is converted to a number. At the original creation, perhaps the particular compiler would set FOUR equal to the text "2Two" or throw an error message no one noticed. The later interpretation does not fix the problem of the original document and interferes with upgrading the document by short-cutting a reasonable review.

A particular example of this came between the 1982 and 1994 versions with regards to the ability of lower segments of FCFs to refine higher segments, specifically if they applied to location and orientation or orientation alone. This problem is specifically mentioned in the foreword.

 

[KENAT]

The screw thread specs explicitly say they should be referenced on the drawings, I forget if it's in B1.1 or the thread rep spec whose reference escapes me but it's in there. Once we found this we added it as a standard note.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[Tunalover]

3DDave-
Is it even necessary to call out ASME Y14.5-2009 for D&T on the drawing if this standard is already invoked indirectly by the note "INTERPRET DRAWING IAW ASME Y14.100-2004."?


Tunalover

 

[3DDave]

Tunalover - you're right; it can be in a document referenced on the drawing. It's my preference that it be explicit to cut down the search. Also, fewer people will have Y14.100, so making them get a copy just to read a small line of text is inconvenient. Except for screw threads, I can't think of anything else that is tricky in reading a drawing; more of what Y14.100 covers is to ensure uniform drawing creation or maintenance.

 

[looslib]

You need to be aware of release dates on specs, too. I don't see how Y14.110-2004 can reference Y14.5-2009 since that version of Y14.5 was not released when Y14.100-2004 was.



"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[lwealing]

I always prefer to reference the spec number as well as the revision number. If needed, it can be updated later to another revision via your change management system. Best to be explicit so there is only one possible interpretation of the requirements, reference specifications, and associated standards provided by the drawing.

 

[looslib]

I get after our engineers for writing reports that only specify Y14.5 with no year. The spec is not complete without the year which is the revision, just like a drawing is not complete without the revision.
If you have another company make part 12345 rev B and then 2 years later order 12345 without specifying what the revision is (which has now changed to E) who is at fault when they ship you 12345 rev B parts?


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[KENAT]

Well looslib, if it's just a rev change then it should be fully interchangeable anyway right, so no problem.;-)

OP, regarding specifying thread specs on the drawing see ASME Y14.6-2001 section 3.2.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[dgallup]

I can guarantee you that spec revisions are not interchangeable. We continue to use a lot of obsolete specs because the current versions are absolute garbage.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.